Her comment got me thinking. If past artists are the equivalent of modern rockstars/actors (insert argument on what is considered art? here) then the way we react to their fame is equal. Right? We are fascinated by their "genius", by their craft, by their passion, and it is this somehow super human talent that propels our fascination with their lives. A, how did you get so great? how are you different or similar to me? How can I be like you?
The Lives is the Renaissance Version of US Weekly
Giorgio Vasari followed the great Italian artists of the Reinaissance and documenting every aspect of their lives and work. His resulting book, "The lives", which is considered one of the founding texts of Art History is full of gossip. Bernini slept with X, Giotto was the rival of Y, Raphael hated Z. Gossip!
The word gossip has such negative connotations, that comparing it to something considered intellectual is sacrilegious, but what I argue is that at its core some things are the same, just fancier, that it is human to enjoy gossip, that it is ok to be curious, that we need gossip and that things will evolve to satisfy this need.
Personally I believe people are drawn to people, what draws us initially to a work might be its is beauty, but what holds our interest is the artist, the people. What made Vasari's work so interesting was not only that he wrote about the art and ideas associated with this amazing group of people, but also the way he wrote about them: The story.
I guess history is a pretty much a collection of stories; and story is just a fancier way to say gossip. Now on to part two...Rembrandt
